Reproductive freedom

  • March 21, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Hillary Schneller, Staff Attorney, Center for Reproductive Rights

    This week marks the 45th anniversary of a key decision protecting our constitutional right to reproductive freedom—and it is not Roe v. Wade. Often flying under the jurisprudential radar is Eisenstadt v. Baird, decided on March 22, 1972, in which the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects the right of unmarried individuals to use contraception. There, the Court pronounced simply: if this right of personal liberty “means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

    This anniversary happens to coincide with the confirmation hearings of Judge Neil Gorsuch, who has heard cases bearing on access to contraception during his time on the bench, but has never heard a case about abortion access. While Judge Gorsuch’s lack of a record on abortion has confounded those who seek a window on how he would decide reproductive rights cases, there is much to be gleaned from his views about access to contraception. Senators should ask Judge Gorsuch where he stands on the right to contraception, a right that he has not acknowledged even while writing opinions that would allow employers—if not the government itself—to deny individuals access to birth control.

    It may be unsurprising that Judge Gorsuch has never addressed the constitutional right to contraception. While abortion is well-known to be a constitutional right, contraception lacks equivalent popular recognition. Eisenstadt is in fact the second case in a trio in which the Court defined the fundamental right to contraception. Those three cases—Griswold v. Connecticut; Eisenstadt v. Baird; and Carey v. Population Services International—identify a sphere of personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that is shielded from government interference. The Court has carried that point through its decisions about reproductive freedom, personal decision-making and family relationships.

  • March 6, 2017
    BookTalk
    Sex and the Constitution
    Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century
    By: 
    Geoffrey Stone
    by Geoffrey Stone, ACS Board of Advisors Member and Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School
     
    My new book, Sex and the Constitution, will officially be released on March 21, but is now available for pre-order on Amazon at a discount. I have worked on this book, on-and-off, for roughly a decade. My goal was to explore the history of sex, religion, law and constitutional law from the ancient world to the 21st century. It was probably a crazy goal, which is no doubt at least partly why it took so long to complete. Now that it is complete, though, I have to admit that I am quite pleased with the result, and the early reviews have been glowing, including from such folks as Lawrence Tribe, Linda Greenhouse, Cass Sunstein, Erwin Chemerinsky, David Cole and George Chauncey.
     
    I have been invited to write this ACS BookTalk in order to inform readers about the work and, hopefully, to entice your curiosity. Rather than writing something “new” for this purpose, I decided that the best way to accomplish the goal is simply to set forth below the opening paragraphs of the Prologue. Hopefully, that will give you a sense of what this work is all about.
     
    We are in the midst of a constitutional revolution. It is a revolution that tests the most fundamental values of the American people and that has shaken constitutional law to its roots. It has bitterly divided citizens, politicians and judges. It is a battle that has dominated politics, inflamed religious passions and challenged Americans to rethink and reexamine their positions on issues they once thought settled. It is a story that has never before been told in its full sweep. And, best of all, it is about sex.
     
  • February 23, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director and Director of the Center for Liberty at the ACLU

    Religious freedom protects the right to our beliefs.  But does it protect the right of institutions to discriminate? The ACLU, staunch defender of religious liberty, says no. The answer for United States Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch appears to be yes. It is the province and duty of the Senate to press Judge Gorsuch on his stance during the confirmation hearings, as this question promises to be central to significant cases likely to come before Court in the near future.

    The opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that Judge Gorsuch joined and authored addressing Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenges to the contraceptive coverage rule of the Affordable Care Act raise troubling questions about his understanding of religious liberty, principles of equality, and their intersection.  Three points are worth noting.

    First, and most significant, in the Hobby Lobby case, the Tenth Circuit, ruling en banc, gave short shrift, and even embraced the harms, to women that would result were the rule enjoined as to Hobby Lobby.  The court acknowledged that women denied coverage (in that case to four methods of contraception) would suffer an economic burden, but went on to say, “Accommodations for religion frequently operate by lifting a burden from the accommodated party and placing it elsewhere.”   In other words, the court, with Judge Gorsuch joining, accepted that employees should bear the cost of their employer’s religion.

    That’s a position the Supreme Court declined to embrace in its Hobby Lobby decision. The Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit and ruled for the arts and crafts giant, but its ruling, unlike that of the Tenth Circuit, rested on the premise that the government could extend the accommodation it provided to religiously affiliated nonprofit entities to for-profit companies. Critically, that accommodation was designed to ensure that employees would continue to receive seamless coverage of contraception from the insurer. In the Court’s opinion, the effect then on “the women employed by Hobby Lobby … involved in these cases would be precisely zero.” The same cannot be said under the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning, which Judge Gorsuch joined.

  • February 10, 2017

    by Katie O’Connor

    Throughout his campaign and in the months since his election, President Trump has repeatedly pledged that his nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case which guarantees the right to abortion. Always a fan of suspense, Trump released two lists of potential nominees before his election, and legal and advocacy organizations began compiling profiles on each of the names. But it was not until Feb. 1, 2017, that speculation regarding the potential nominee to fill Justice Scalia’s seat ended, and President Trump formally transmitted the nomination of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Senate for confirmation.

    Despite the president’s campaign pledges, we cannot know with certainty how Judge Gorsuch would rule if the Court were asked to overturn Roe v. Wade. What we do know, however, is the following.

    Judge Gorsuch is no champion of women’s access to contraception and reproductive healthcare more broadly. He joined the 2013 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, which found that Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation, can have a sincerely-held religious belief that certain contraceptive methods are actually abortifacients (though experts argue they are not) and that facilitating coverage of those methods would be a sin. Moreover, the decision ruled, Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs would be substantially burdened by a provision under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires the corporation to provide health insurance to its employees that includes coverage of those contraceptive methods. Finally, the decision reads, the requirement of such coverage is not narrowly tailored to further the government’s interest in “public health” and “gender equality.” While the government sought to provide comprehensive and seamless coverage of preventative health services to women and men alike, the Tenth Circuit, joined by Judge Gorsuch, essentially found that the religious beliefs of a for-profit corporation outweighed the corporation’s employees’ right to such coverage.

  • November 2, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Priscilla J. Smith, Associate Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School and the Senior Fellow and Director of the Program for the Study of Reproductive Justice at the Information Society Project

    The 2016 presidential election is already making a difference in our conversation about women’s role in society, about gender stereotypes, about what constitutes sexual assault. I would like to think this is because a new generation of young women and men, those who have been raised by women and men who fought for sexual equality, have completely different expectations for gender equality than generations that came before them. After all, their parents may have fought to change things but they had not been raised to take these changes for granted the way their kids have. 

    Let us recognize the change that we have already experienced. It was only a few election cycles ago that abortion remained a third rail for progressives. If forced to discuss it, they would mumble that abortion should be safe, legal and rare and then pivot to discuss the economy as quickly as possible. More recently, especially after all the “slut-shaming” that came from conservatives when women demanded access to contraceptives and the discussion of “real”—and thus implicitly “unreal”—rape, things had begun to shift.  Progressives began to recognize that being outspokenly pro-women and pro-choice increased their support among women voters in ways that could decide elections. Still, few progressives seemed to actually enjoy discussing abortion. Especially dreaded was any discussion of so called “late term” abortions.

    That all changed during the last presidential debate, when one candidate seemed to puff up and beam when the other starting ranting about abortion.  Could it be that this election can help us shift what it means to be pro-life?  Could being pro-“life” mean that you would support kids and their parents when a child is born, no matter your view of the status of the embryo or fetus before birth? A truly pro-“life” politician would change policies that discourage families from having more children, like the welfare “family caps” that deny additional support to families who have additional children; s/he would institute programs of paid family leave and free or low-cost child-care to enable parents, both single and coupled, to provide for their children; s/he would make sure that families had adequate health care; s/he would support the right of a pregnant woman to protect her own life and her health status by ending her pregnancy. At least, that kind of pro-“life” position has the benefit of not being hypocritical. In this view of what it means to be pro-“life,” we could ask when a state claims to be promoting potential life, does it undermine its claim by failing to support these policies that support the lives of the people who are born or live in that very same state?